Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Los Angeles Steps Up Fight on Large Ads

Yes landlords disregard the law, bringing us unwanted advertising content with little concern for the wants of the rest of us. Yes by doing so they prevent other more constructive visual happenings around our shared landscape. But can we really bemoan their behavior when..."A violation of the billboard ordinance carries a maximum monthly fine of $2,500. But Mr. Weiss said the signs could bring in $100,000 in rent for building owners." If we as a concerned citizens do not demand from our government proper enforcement of our collective wishes, we cannot expect compliance from those poised to make unheard of profits.

LOS ANGELES — This city has opened a new front in its longstanding battle with billboard companies, ordering building owners to remove so-called supergraphic signs, enormous advertisements draped across multistory structures, after deeming them fire hazards.

Los Angeles city officials said the signs, made mostly of vinyl, had proliferated since December, when the City Council passed a temporary ban on billboards and large signs. The stopgap move was an effort to give the city more time to close loopholes in a 2002 law intended to curtail billboard advertisements.

Jack Weiss, a city councilman who wrote the temporary ordinance, said the original legislation was supposed to put a stop to the supergraphic signs. “Instead,” Mr. Weiss said, “the supergraphic companies have plastered their signs up all over the city and are thumbing their noses at the law.”

“Many of these signs are dangerous,” he added. “They prevent people from getting out in case of fire, or firefighters from getting in.”

The Fire Department estimates that more than 100 buildings from downtown to the coast have illegal signs.

Inspectors have ordered 20 building owners to remove large signs, Mr. Weiss said, and will continue to issue warnings.

A violation of the billboard ordinance carries a maximum monthly fine of $2,500. But Mr. Weiss said the signs could bring in $100,000 in rent for building owners.

The city has been blocked from enforcing the 2002 law because of legal entanglements, including lawsuits by billboard companies over free-speech rights. In 2006 and 2007, the city settled lawsuits with three of the largest billboard companies —CBS Outdoor, Clear Channel Outdoor and Regency — allowing them to convert as many as 850 print billboards to electronic ones.

Even so, the supergraphic signs seem to be gaining in popularity.

People in neighborhoods across the city have reported seeing work crews unfurling the banners at night and on weekends. Barbara Broide, who lives in the West Los Angeles district, said she and her neighbors had photographed workers in cranes mounting the signs with thick plastic cables before leaving in trucks piled high with more folded signs.

Ms. Broide, 55, said many neighborhood groups were frustrated by the lack of billboard regulation.

“These companies are not only not complying, but doing things dangerous to building occupants and firefighters,” Ms. Broide said. “And yet these signs seem to persist.”

On August 19, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff World. Wide Rush, LLC and incite Outdoor Works LA, LLC's (Plaintiffs'") Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Plaintiffs have advised the Court that, upon issuance of a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs will waive their claim for damages and all non-first-amendment claims (subject to reinstatement should the preliminary injunction be reversed on appeal), and this injunction will constitute the Final Judgment in this action. After considering the evidence presented and the arguments of the parties, the Court: rules as follows:

1) Sections 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(B)(11) of the Sign Ordinance violate the First Amendment because the exceptions in those provisions for off-site and supergraphic signs permitted pursuant to special plans, supplemental use districts, and development agreements vest unfettered discretion in City officials.

2) The exceptions in sections 14.4.4(B)(9) and 14.4.4(3)(11) for off-site and supergraphic signs permitted pursuant to special plans, supplemental use districts, and development agreements are not severable.

3) The restriction in section 14.4.6 on signs within 2,000 feet of a freeway violates the First Amendment because it does not directly advance the City's asserted interests underlying the restriction and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests; therefore, section 14.4.6 is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech under

Central Hudson.

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

2. The City, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert or participating with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from taking the following actions 'against supergraphic signs owned and operated by Plaintiffs or those in contractual privity with them at the 21 sites specified in the modified preliminary injunction:

a. Enforcing section 14.4.4(3)(9) of the sign ordinance;

b. Enforcing section 14.4.4(3)(11) of the sign ordinance;

c. Enforcing section 14.4.6 of the sign ordinance. The sites subject to this injunction are as follows:

This injunction prohibits the City both from interfering with Plaintiffs' maintenance of their off-site signs and supergraphic signs and from issuing citations to Plaintiffs or those with whom they contract based on the above-cited code sections or based on the inability of Plaintiffs to obtain permits for their off-site signs and supergraphic signs because of the City's enforcement of the above‑ cited code sections. The City may inspect and verify Plaintiffs' signs to ensure that they have been constructed according to applicable code provisions to ensure the safe construction of signs.

The Court further ORDERS that there being no claims left to litigate in this action, that this judgment is the final judgment in